Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Jamil vs State Of U.P. And Others on 24 November, 2025
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Reserved on:27.8.2025
Delivered on:24.11.2025
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:77002
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT C No. - 1000641 of 1996
Mohd. Jamil
..Petitioners(s)
Versus
State of U.P. & others
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
:
Q.M.Haque, Anurudh Singh, Manoj Kumar Mishra, Manoj Kumar Misra, Ravindra Prakash Ojha
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., I.D. Shukla, S.K. Mehrotra
Court No. - 4
HONBLE IRSHAD ALI, J.
1. Heard Sri Desh Deepak Verma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed as under :-
"i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the order dated 7.2.1996, passed by opposite party no.2 contained in Annexure No.1, the order dated 22.4.1993, passed by opposite party no.3 contained in Annexure no.2 and the auction sale confirmed on 3.1.1992 by opposite party no.4 contained in Annexure no.4 to this writ petition,
ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1 and no.3 and opposite party no.6 not to proceed further implementing the impugned auction sale and also not to recover the amount of Rs.19,410.00 (Rs. Ninteen Thousand four hundred ten only) the recovery certificate of which was duly withdrawn by the Sales Tax Officer,
iii) ...
iv) ..."
3. The present writ petition arises out of recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by opposite party nos.1 and 4 pursuant to a recovery certificate issued by the Sales Tax Officer, District Gonda, for a sum of ₹24,106/, sought to be realised as arrears of land revenue.
4. A proclamation for auction of the immovable property belonging to the petitioner, namely certain agricultural plots, was issued by opposite party no. 3 on 23.10.1991 fixing 25.11.1991 as the date of auction. According to the petitioner, no copy of the proclamation was ever served upon him, nor was the same made known to the general public. It is specifically pleaded that neither beat of drum in the village was employed, nor was any publication effected in local newspapers or through leaflets, as contemplated by law. The proclamation itself was materially defective, inasmuch as it failed to mention the location, valuation, and annual land revenue of the property to be sold.
5. The petitioners land situates at Mohdeiya Mod and, according to him, has considerable commercial value estimated at ₹1,50,000/. However, as per the report of the Kanoongo, its valuation was wrongly shown as ₹38,637/ only. Owing to these lapses, the auction held on 25.11.1991 culminated in acceptance of the bid of opposite party no. 5 for a meagre amount of ₹28,500/, which was accepted by the Sale Officer. The record shows that 1/4th of the consideration was deposited on the date of auction, whereas the remaining 3/4th was deposited only on 17.12.1991. The petitioner avers that, under Rule 285-D of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, the balance consideration was required to be deposited within 15 days, but the deposit was made beyond the statutory period. The record further discloses overwriting in the date of deposit, changing 17 to 9 in order to portray that the amount was deposited within time.
6. In the meantime, and significantly, the Sales Tax Officer, Gonda, by orders dated 05.09.1991 and 02.12.1991, withdrew recovery certificates for amounts aggregating ₹19,410/ out of the original demand. The withdrawal orders were duly received in the office of the Tehsildar, Utraula, on 04.12.1991, i.e., prior to the confirmation of sale. Despite this, the sale was confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer/opposite party no. 4 on 03.01.1992.
7. Upon learning of the auction, the petitioner filed an application under Rule 285-I of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules on 23.12.1991 before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division (opposite party no. 3). This application was rejected on 22.04.1993. Against the said rejection, the petitioner preferred a revision under the Rules before the Board of Revenue (opposite party no. 2). In the revision, the petitioner submitted written arguments on 02.02.1996. The opposite party no. 5 is also said to have filed written submissions, but no copy thereof was supplied to the petitioner. The revision was dismissed by order dated 07.02.1996.
8. The petitioner maintains that he continues to remain in actual possession of the land, namely plot Nos. 83M (area 166), 96M (.033), 97M (.4), 102M (.083), 103M (1.04), and 206M (.105). Nevertheless, opposite party nos.1 and 4 to 6 are attempting to dispossess him on the strength of the impugned sale proceedings.
9. The petitioner asserts that the entire auction and confirmation proceedings are vitiated due to non-service and non-publication of proclamation, undervaluation of property, illegal acceptance of deposit beyond the statutory period, pendency of objections under Rule 285-I, as well as withdrawal of the very recovery certificates in question. It is further alleged that the confirmation of sale by the opposite party no. 4 was without jurisdiction, and that the authorities concerned failed to apply their mind to the adequacy of the sale price or to the case law cited by the petitioner. The petitioner also makes an allegation of collusion between the Sale Officer and the auction purchaser, contending that in fact no genuine auction was conducted, and the papers were fabricated to show otherwise.
10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged (i) the order dated 22.04.1993 of the Commissioner, Faizabad (opposite party no. 3), (ii) the order dated 07.02.1996 of the Board of Revenue (opposite party no. 2), and (iii) the auction sale as confirmed on 03.01.1992 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (opposite party no. 4).
11. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 averred that the auction proceedings in question were conducted strictly in accordance with law and relevant rules. The immovable property was auctioned on 03.01.1992 in favour of the highest bidder, respondent no. 5. The allegation of the petitioner that the market value of the land was higher than the auction price is denied as being unsubstantiated, there being no evidence produced in that regard.
12. It is further submitted that the auction purchaser deposited the requisite one-fourth amount of ₹7,125/- on 25.11.1991 and the remaining three-fourths amount of ₹21,375/- on 09.12.1991, within the prescribed period. A copy of the report of the Naib Tehsildar evidencing such deposit has been filed as Annexure No. CA-1. Accordingly, it is contended that the auction was validly executed in accordance with the applicable rules.
13. It has further been stated that the learned Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, after considering the entire pleadings and affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, dismissed the appeal on merits by order dated 22.04.1993. The order of the Commissioner was subsequently affirmed by the learned Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow, by order dated 07.02.1996 in Revision No. 18 (Cell)/1992-93 Mohd. Jamil v. State of U.P. and Others, which too was decided on merits. It is contended that the said orders suffer from no infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.
14. Lastly, it is submitted that the grounds taken in the writ petition are wholly misconceived, untenable and devoid of substance. The petitioner has failed to establish any legal right or procedural irregularity in the conduct of the auction.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands, has made inaccurate, untrue and misleading statements, thus, he is not entitled for any relief. It is further submitted that when a point which is ostensibly a point of law, must plead and substantiated by evidence. Controverting the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and in support of his submission, Sri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has placed reliance upon the following judgments :-
(i) Raj Kumar Soni and another Vs. State of U.P. and another [2007 (25) LCD 1345]. Relevant paragraph 11 is being quoted as under :-
"11. The High Court, after an elaborate consideration of the matter, in clear and categorical terms, found that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction vested in him to grant/allot the Government land and the power vests only with the District Collector. The appellants did not plead and establish to the satisfaction of the Court that the Sub-Divisional Officer is conferred with the jurisdiction to allot/grant the Government land on the strength of applications by the interested parties. It is a fundamental principle of law that a person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and must make a full and complete disclosure of facts to the Court. Parties are not entitled to choose their own facts to put- forward before the Court. The foundational facts are required to be pleaded enabling the Court to scrutinize the nature and content of the right alleged to have been violated by the authority."
(ii) K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others [2008 (12) Supreme Court Cases 481]. Relevant paragraph 34 is being quoted as under :-
"34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim."
(iii) Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and others Vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and others [2013 (31) LCD 12]. Relevant paragraphs 47 and 48 are being quoted as under :-
"47. We may only refer to two cases on this subject. In 288318 stress was laid on litigants eschewing inaccurate, untrue or misleading statements, otherwise leave granted to an Appellant may be revoked. It was observed as follows:
"It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. That is why we have come to the conclusion that in the present case, special leave granted to the Appellant ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special leave is revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The Appellant will pay the costs of the Respondent."
48. More recently, in 297530 the case law on the subject was discussed. It was held that if a litigant does not come to the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed, such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum. It was said:
"The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case."
(iv) Bharat Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others [AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2181]. Relevant paragraph 13 is being quoted as under :-
"13. As has been already noticed, although the point as to profiteering by the State was pleaded in the writ petitions before the High Court as an abstract point of law, there was no reference to any material in support thereof nor was the point argued at the hearing of the writ petitions. Before us also, no particulars and no facts have been given in the special leave petitions or in the writ petitions or in any affidavit, but the point has been sought to be substantiated at the time of hearing by referring to certain facts stated in the said application by HSIDC. In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter, affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that has been raised before us PG NO 1060 by the appellants is not entertainable. But, in spite of that, we have entertained it to show that it is devoid of any merit."
(v) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another [(2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 639]. Relevant paragraphs 9 and 10 is being quoted as under :-
"9. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC 534 : AIR 1988 SC 2181] , this Court has observed as under : (SCC p. 543, para 13)
13. In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not [the] evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.(emphasis added)
A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [(1998) 4 SCC 387 : AIR 1998 SC 1608] , Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh [(2001) 5 SCC 133 : AIR 2001 SC 1684] and Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti v. Union of India .
10. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties."
16. After having heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record as well as the law reports cited.
17. The auction of the immovable property belonging to the petitioner, namely certain agricultural plots, was issued by opposite party no. 3 on 23.10.1991 fixing 25.11.1991 as the date of auction. According to the petitioner, no copy of the proclamation was ever served upon him, nor was the same made known to the general public. It is specifically pleaded that neither beat of drum in the village was employed, nor was any publication effected in local newspapers or through leaflets, as contemplated by law. The proclamation itself was materially defective, inasmuch as it failed to mention the location, valuation, and annual land revenue of the property to be sold. The land of the petitioner situates at Mohdeiya Mod and, according to him, has considerable commercial value estimated at ₹1,50,000/. However, as per the report of the Kanoongo, its valuation was wrongly shown as ₹38,637/ only. Owing to these lapses, the auction held on 25.11.1991 culminated in acceptance of the bid of opposite party no. 5 for a meagre amount of ₹28,500/, which was accepted by the Sale Officer. The record shows that 1/4th of the consideration was deposited on the date of auction, whereas the remaining 3/4th was deposited only on 17.12.1991. The petitioner avers that, under Rule 285-D of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, the balance consideration was required to be deposited within 15 days, but the deposit was made beyond the statutory period. The record further discloses overwriting in the date of deposit, changing 17 to 9 in order to portray that the amount was deposited within time.
18. The Sales Tax Officer, Gonda, by orders dated 05.09.1991 and 02.12.1991, withdrew recovery certificates for amounts aggregating ₹19,410/ out of the original demand. The withdrawal orders were duly received in the office of the Tehsildar, Utraula, on 04.12.1991, i.e., prior to the confirmation of sale. Despite this, the sale was confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer/opposite party no. 4 on 03.01.1992. The petitioner filed an application under Rule 285-I of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules on 23.12.1991 before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division (opposite party no. 3). This application was rejected on 22.04.1993. Against the said rejection, the petitioner preferred a revision under the Rules before the Board of Revenue (opposite party no. 2). In the revision, the petitioner submitted written arguments on 02.02.1996. The opposite party no. 5 is also said to have filed written submissions, but no copy thereof was supplied to the petitioner. The revision was dismissed by order dated 07.02.1996.
19. The continues to remain in actual possession of the land, namely plot Nos. 83M (area 166), 96M (.033), 97M (.4), 102M (.083), 103M (1.04), and 206M (.105). Nevertheless, opposite party nos.1 and 4 to 6 are attempting to dispossess him on the strength of the impugned sale proceedings. The entire auction and confirmation proceedings are vitiated due to non-service and non-publication of proclamation, undervaluation of property, illegal acceptance of deposit beyond the statutory period, pendency of objections under Rule 285-I, as well as withdrawal of the very recovery certificates in question. The confirmation of sale by the opposite party no. 4 was without jurisdiction, and the authorities concerned failed to apply their mind to the adequacy of the sale price or to the case law cited by the petitioner. The petitioner also makes an allegation of collusion between the Sale Officer and the auction purchaser, contending that in fact no genuine auction was conducted, and the papers were fabricated to show otherwise, therefore, the entire auction proceeding vitiates in law and is liable to be set aside.
20. The order dated 22.04.1993 of the Commissioner, Faizabad (opposite party no. 3), order dated 07.02.1996 of the Board of Revenue (opposite party no. 2), and the auction sale as confirmed on 03.01.1992 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (opposite party no. 4) are wholly unjustified and without any rational basis.
21. The submission advanced on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 6 that the auction proceeding in question was conducted strictly in accordance with law and relevant rules, this submission is not acceptable due to non-service and non-publication of proclamation, undervaluation of property, illegal acceptance of deposit beyond the statutory period, pendency of objections under Rule 285-I, as well as withdrawal of the very recovery certificates in question.
22. The petitioner in the writ petition approached with clean hands and no material whatsoever has been concealed or suppressed by the petitioner in obtaining the order, therefore, the judgment relied upon by Sri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.5 is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
23. The auction purchaser deposited the requisite one-fourth amount of ₹7,125/- on 25.11.1991 and the remaining three-fourths amount of ₹21,375/- on 09.12.1991, within the prescribed period. It is the case of the petitioner that auction was held without serving the proclamation on him. The same was not made known to the general public. Neither beat of drum in the village was employed, nor was any publication effected in local newspapers or through leaflets, as contemplated by law. The proclamation itself was materially defective, inasmuch as it failed to mention the location, valuation, and annual land revenue of the property to be sold, therefore, the entire auction proceeding vitiates in law and is liable to be set aside.
24. The authorities concerned have also failed to consider and did not apply their minds to the adequacy of the sale price or to the case law cited by the petitioner, in fact, no genuine auction was conducted and the papers were fabricated to show otherwise as entire auction and confirmation proceeding are vitiated due to due to non-service and non-publication of proclamation, undervaluation of property, illegal acceptance of deposit beyond the statutory period, pendency of objections under Rule 285-I, as well as withdrawal of the very recovery certificates in question.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons aforesaid, the entire auction proceeding vitiates in law, therefore, the order dated 7.2.1996, passed by opposite party no.2 contained in Annexure No.1, the order dated 22.4.1993, passed by opposite party no.3 contained in Annexure no.2 and the auction sale confirmed on 3.1.1992 by opposite party no.4 contained in Annexure no.4 to this writ petition are hereby quashed.
26. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
27. The concerned Sales Tax Officer is directed to proceed with the fresh auction proceeding by publishing it in the local newspapers and certify the valuation of the property as well as by beat of drum of the locality where the auction is to be made. The said exercise shall be completed within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
28. No order as to costs.
(Irshad Ali,J.)
November 24, 2025
Gautam
